Horizon Zero Dawn Wikia talk:Editing Guidelines
Categories http://horizonzerodawn.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Lacrossedeamon/Top_Down_Attempt_at_Categorizing A tentative layout for a categories flowchart under gameplay. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 10:51, April 1, 2017 (UTC) : I'm assuming the other users aren't allowed to add or remove categories once you have organised the wiki accordingly? And that articles that are under subcategories should not be found in the supercategory as well? Heshbruwn (talk) 14:14, April 2, 2017 (UTC) :: I'd like more input from other users before making it an official wiki policy and I'm not sure about locking other users out. It would go much faster if everyone was spun up on it and collaborated. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 15:41, April 2, 2017 (UTC) What the headers mean Hi all, for now I just typed the headers with what I have in mind at the moment, so they will probably be changed if needed. *'To use "Aloy" or "the player"' **Decides if we should we should use "Aloy" or "the player". **E.g. in the melee weapons article, "the player" is used, while in the Olin article, "Aloy" is used. :Just some input from other wikias I've seen... a good rule for referring to "the player" vs. "Aloy" is whether or not you are actually speaking of the person in the chair or the on-screen character in the context of the article. In general, when speaking of what happens in the game, that means you refer to Aloy, but if there is something specific in the real world, e.g. "The player must hold both L2 and R2 to aim", then you refer to the player, as Aloy has no concept of the controller that makes her move around. Felice Enellen (talk) 22:32, April 1, 2017 (UTC) :::That sounds good Felice. :) Heshbruwn (talk) 14:13, April 2, 2017 (UTC) :::I approve of this rule suggested, I think it's a perfect destinction to keep in mind and to put into our Guidelines! Meyerliane (talk) 00:10, April 3, 2017 (UTC) *'Categorization' **Will articles in subcategories also be in the parent categories? Are users allowed to add their own categories? etc. *'Writing Style' **What sort of tense should be used? **E.g. past tense for anything and everything, or past for the events of the old ones, while present tense for the events of Aloy, etc. **American English or British English? (at this point I'm pretty sure american english, but still needs to be written down) *'Linking' **Are all instances linked, or just the first instance? Heshbruwn (talk) 10:55, April 1, 2017 (UTC) *'Pluralization of articles titles' :I'd also like to suggest a section for pluralization of article titles- in my experience singular titles are typically preferred, but we have a lot of titles like Outfits and Metal Flowers. Bearborg (talk) 11:15, April 1, 2017 (UTC) :::Good idea, it will be under the "writing style" categoryHeshbruwn (talk) 12:43, April 1, 2017 (UTC) :::: I'd to caveat this by saying that some articles should remain singular in my opinion. Namely specific weapons like say Shadow Hunter Bow. This should also help distinguish something like a Ropecasters page where we talk about all the different ropecasters in general versus the Ropecaster page where we only talk about the uncommon variation of the weapon. Pick up weapons could go either way though. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 13:07, April 1, 2017 (UTC) ::::Personally, I'm firmly of the opinion that we should be using singular titles. It seems pretty silly to go around renaming Grazer to Grazers, Thunderjaw to Thunderjaws, etc. On top of that, Wikia's linking syntax is specifically designed to work the other way around- writing There are Metal Flowers nearby is a much easier change than There is a Metal Flower nearby Bearborg (talk) 13:15, April 1, 2017 (UTC) :::::IMO, we can't just declare all article headers to be plural or singular. For example, Outfits and Metal Flowers consist of multiple entries, while for weapons, we are mostly referring to singular entries as players usually only have one of them (Ropecaster, Hunter Bow, etc). Heshbruwn (talk) 16:13, April 1, 2017 (UTC) ::::::I'd say Wikipedia's policies on the subject are pretty good. Singular for most cases, but plural for instances where a specific set of related things is being named, rather than a more general category. Following that system, Stranded Items would probably be plural, but Outfit and Metal Flower would be singular. Bearborg (talk) 16:39, April 1, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::I wouldn't mind following those guidelines, especially since they're a set of hard guidelines that establish boundaries. Would like to know what others think though. Heshbruwn (talk) 14:13, April 2, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::A poll, maybe? You can make one pretty easily like so: Article title pluralization: Mostly plural Wikipedia convention (mostly singular) Some other option :::::::::Though obviously you might want to change the options. Bearborg (talk) 14:53, April 2, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::I'll create multiple polls to speed things up a little. Heshbruwn (talk) 16:35, April 2, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::I think we're good to go for the Singular for all articles. Though when we it's an article that contains several elements or entries (like Outfits). I agree that for weapons we are mostly referring to singular entries, to a certain type of weapon, while variations and special types can simply be listed as such on the same article. :::::::::::If we follow the Wikipedia's policies, that is alright for me. But we'd have to discuss a lot, which titles are for more "general" categories and which are for instances where a specific set of related things is being named. Following this logic, you could say Metal Flower can be singular, but you could also argue it needs to be plural since the article contains a set of related entries (and I'd say it has to be plural anyway as the Collectibles are plural too?). While types of animals/machines and weapons are of a more general nature, thus can be titled in singular. I wonder how we'd go about articles such as Braves and Outcast, because it's rather referring to a group of people than a "type of people", thus should stay in plural form then. Meyerliane (talk) 00:28, April 3, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::::I feel however the topic is referred to in the first sentence of the article is how we should format the title. So if decide for example that "A goose is..." is more natural sounding than "Geese are..." we should go with the singular. Personally I don't like that thoug. I feel definite nouns should be singular while indefinite should be plural. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:26, April 3, 2017 (UTC) AI names How are we formatting AI names? All caps or not? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:17, April 2, 2017 (UTC) : Hmmm pretty sure they're all caps in the subtitles, so I rather stick to that. Heshbruwn (talk) 14:09, April 2, 2017 (UTC) : I'd personally like to stick to how it's done in the game too, which is all caps. It also makes the distinction between humans and AIs. Meyerliane (talk) 0:14, April 3, 2017 (UTC) Past Tense or Present Tense? Idea 1: Past tense for all articles, no exceptions Idea 2: Past tense for all events that happened in the timeline of the Old Ones, present tense for all in game events. E.g.: *Elisabet and Ted Faro were rivals during their time due to clashing beliefs. (Past tense as it happened in their timeline) *Aloy sees Elisabet and Ted Faro arguing during one of the main missions.... (Present tense as it happens during the game) Heshbruwn (talk) 14:18, April 2, 2017 (UTC) :: I think past tense for all character biographies but present tense when describing still extant things like wildlife or mission walkthroughs. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 15:38, April 2, 2017 (UTC) :: From what I've seen on other wikias, I'd say past tense for actual past events prior to the game's start (backgrounds) and present tense for all events that are happening in the game, that are experiencable by us as the player (so idea 2). It enhances the distinction between past (only mentioned) and in-game events. Plus, of course general descriptions and synopsis should always be written in present tense. Meyerliane (talk) 07:55, April 2, 2017 (UTC) :: The current poll about this doesn't include my last proposal, only "Present tense for events that happen during Aloy's timeline, past tense for Old One's timeline" and "Past tense for all character biographies, present tense for subjects that still exist (e.g. wildlife, mission walkthroughs, etc)". My proposal was to basically do both - "Past tense for past events in character biographies and other events of the Old One's timeline, present tense for all in-game events plus subjects that still exits (e.g. wildlife, walkthroughs, etc.)". Meyerliane (talk) 20:15, April 3, 2017 (UTC) :::: I have just added your option, as a result, all previous participants of that poll must revote. Heshbruwn (talk) 06:13, April 4, 2017 (UTC) :::: Thanks for that, Heshbruwn! Meyerliane (talk) 9:16, April 4, 2017 (UTC) Format on multiple layouts Hey guys, seeing wikia allows for different page layouts (mainly Oasis and Monobook), do we want to add a guideline that advises towards making sure the edit looks good on both? Bringing this up due to the fact that not all wikis make use of monobook and sometimes they end up looking weird when viewed by monobook users. Draaek the Blazing Dragon of Light 21:52, April 2, 2017 (UTC) : Could you link me some examples of articles that use the Monobook layout? Haven't seen anything but the Oasis skin (or are you talking about the mobile layout?). Also, I'm not sure where to start on guidelines regarding different skins as I am actually rather new to the wiki, so pardon the ignorance. :s Heshbruwn (talk) 05:58, April 4, 2017 (UTC) :This is how Aloy's article looks at the moment on Oasis and this is how it looks like to me when using Monobook. For Monobook users this basically means no more background image or even the color background on the article itself, the infobox loses all it's blue color as well as the text isn't centered and on most infoboxes the image will clip outside of the margins unlike Oasis. :As for examples of Monobook focused articles, this is how our articles (and general experience of Monobook) look at the Kingdom Hearts Wikia, unlike their counterpart on Oasis. As far as I know, none of the active editors use Oasis at all so the entire editing is done with Monobook in mind but feel free to browse through Sora's article or any other on our wiki on both layouts. will give you access to change the layouts. :Lastly, we don't have guidelines regarding layouts either (not entirely certain if we had them in the past prior to me joining) and we've never really needed them since coincidentally the edits we make on Monobook look decent on Oasis as well (with the exception of a few minor issues like words clipping a bit into an image on the gallery and things like that). Honestly, there isn't much I can actually suggest there but I thought about bringing this up to draw attention to the other side of wikia that almost no one knows about but is used by some. If anything, I'd say that a notice regarding checking the infoboxes would be more than enough, as those are the only things that really look awful on Monobook compared to Oasis. Draaek the Blazing Dragon of Light 15:47, April 4, 2017 (UTC) :::Oh dear, the infoboxes do look rather strange on Monobook. I'll do a bit of digging, but I'm also a bit at a loss as the infoboxes on this wikia utilised the wiki Infobox Builder. Worst comes to worst, the infoboxes will have to be built from scratch with code. Heshbruwn (talk) 07:38, April 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::That really shouldn't be necessary; you can just edit Mediawiki:Monobook.css to try and make them match up better. Bearborg (talk) 11:39, April 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::On the subject of Monobook, it'd be nice if we had a custom logo instead of the Fandom default. You'd just need to replace File:Wiki.png. This also shows up as the preview image for the wiki on many mobile browsers. Bearborg (talk) 15:10, April 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::::I have went to take a look at the Monobook.css and noticed that despite the CSS code stating that the infobox should have a nice grey border, the infobox remains stubbornly borderless. To test it further, I tried changing the background colour of the infobox to a shade of greyish-blue, but it remains as white. I went to check other wikis like the Dishonored and Hitman wiki that use the infobox builder as well, and it seems they have a similar problem. Maybe the infobox builder overrides the css styling? I've studied other languages, but never dabbled in CSS, so it might be just my lack of expertise. As for the icon, it would be nice to replace the Fandom default, but we need ideas on what icon will represent the wiki. Heshbruwn (talk) 06:28, April 6, 2017 (UTC) :::::::You're partially correct; .infobox rules don't apply to infoboxes created with the new infobox builder. The appropriate class to modify for an infobox-builder infobox would be .pi-background. You can find the class names yourself by using your browser's developer tools (typically accessed with Ctrl+Shift+i), though it's definitely pretty confusing at first. :::::::Regarding the logo, I'd suggest trying to match the current favicon, since mobile browsers use the logo equivalently. Bearborg (talk) 07:37, April 6, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::I have updated the portable infoboxes for the Monobook theme so that they better match the infoboxes in the Oasis theme. I was considering if the light blue lines should be removed, but for now have left them in (unless you think it should match the Oasis skin exactly?) :::::::::Bearborg, regarding the favicon you mentioned, it looks like this on my screen. Heshbruwn (talk) 10:25, April 6, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::Changes look really nice now! I had no idea that builder existed, no wonder the infoboxes looked different on each layout. As for the lines, it's all up to whether we want full consistency or just make monobook look better. Since I've always used scratch-built infoboxes everything matched on both sides and this was never much of a concern heh. Draaek the Blazing Dragon of Light 14:01, April 6, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::Wikia doesn't preview the file, but you can still view it by clicking the link on the file page. In any case, I've replaced the above link with a direct one. Bearborg (talk) 16:40, April 6, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::What do you think of something like this? Bearborg (talk) 21:03, April 6, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::::That is exactly what I thought would make a good logo :) Although a thin black border might be required to surround it as the white might be hard see against the background. Heshbruwn (talk) 05:26, April 7, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::::There's already a fairly thick black border on that image, to match the favicon. Bearborg (talk) 05:34, April 7, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::::::Alright, cool. Didn't notice that until I dragged the image as the background of the image was a default black. Heshbruwn (talk) 06:11, April 7, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::::::Wiki.png has been updated. Heshbruwn (talk) 06:23, April 7, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::Looks good! Bearborg (talk) 06:51, April 7, 2017 (UTC) Machine information Greetings all. As a major fan of Horizon Zero Dawn, im very happy to contribute to this wiki. I think an important consideration should be the standardization of a format for articles on machines. What information should be included, and under what headings? For example, I expanded the Rockbreaker article as follows: a short introduction, physical description, abilities, weaknesses, and suggested tactics. I left the image table of components and loot. I'd like to suggest this as the format for Machine articles. However, does anyone have suggestions for modification, or another idea for a format? The same applies to the sidebar information. HorizonMagna (talk) 03:46, April 4, 2017 (UTC) : Just my $0.02, the sidebar should have entries in all the fields of the infobox. They are: *Class *Habitat *Components *Loot *Weakness *Breakable parts *Cauldron : If information on any of the fields is not yet known to the editor, it should be temporarily filled with "Unknown". As for the article itself, I think having a Suggested Tactics section is good to have, but if we decide to include it as the standard format, we would have to update all other existing machine articles as they all don't have that section. : IMO, the standard headers should be * Appearance * History * Abilities * Suggested Tactics (?) * Components * Loot * Trivia * Gallery * Navigation (for the navigation bar to other machines) Heshbruwn (talk) 06:10, April 4, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm now wondering if Suggested Tactics should be included at all. There is more than 1 way to take down a Machine (by the way, we also need to decide if that's a proper noun or not, and there are many game sites that give good advice. I'm now thinking it should be left out. But I agree with your format. --HorizonMagna (talk) 17:26, April 8, 2017 (UTC) ::I agree with that format too, and maybe it should just be Tacticts, in general? Meyerliane (talk) 13:10, April 9, 2017 (UTC) ::::Hmm, what about "Strategies"? I'm also not sure if it should be included (hence the question mark by its side), because it might be too subjective and varied. Heshbruwn (talk) 15:07, April 11, 2017 (UTC) Closing Date of Polls Hi all, The closing date for each poll will be two weeks after its creation (the majority of the polls currently ongoing will end on 17 April). The polls that have overwhelming response for a certain option (e.g. Poll on capitalization on AI names) might be closed earlier. I'm looking for a sample size of at least a bare minimum of 10, so the closing date of polls might be extended if required. Also, please check back on the polls from time to time as new polls might be added for voting, or new options will be added to existing polls and thus users need to revote. Cheers. Heshbruwn (talk) 06:16, April 4, 2017 (UTC) Links in transcripts I was just looking at a holo transcript that mentioned APOLLO in its dialogue without actually linking to APOLLO, and wondered if we do or don't want to add links to transcripts. I personally figure they're harmless and potentially helpful, but I wanted to bounce it off others while the guidelines are still being formed, in case there's a reason to keep the transcripts looking more "pure"-looking or something. As implied, I would vote for links. Felice Enellen (talk) 12:57, April 8, 2017 (UTC) : Linking to transcripts, or linking from within transcripts? Your example showcases linking from within transcripts while you support linking to transcripts so I'm a bit confused. Anyway, I support both of them. Heshbruwn (talk) 04:49, April 9, 2017 (UTC) :: Oops, my bad. To clarify, I meant to ask if we should links from within transcripts to their respective articles. To give an imaginary example, if a character in a dialogue were to say, "You know, GAIA, I think Travis secretly has a crush on Elisabet", should we link the words "GAIA", "Travis", and "Elisabet" to their respective bio pages, or should we keep transcripts as plaintext? Felice Enellen (talk) 07:50, April 10, 2017 (UTC) :::: I definitely support linking from within transcripts. It better connects the wiki overall IMO. Heshbruwn (talk) 12:16, April 10, 2017 (UTC) ::::: Okay, we're on the same page, then. :) I don't really expect anyone would object to it, but sometimes it's best to ask. Felice Enellen (talk) 13:35, April 10, 2017 (UTC) Multiple Weapons For now, our weapons part of the wiki pretty much just stacks all information on Carja and Shadow weapons into the infobox. Perhaps it would be better if we have separate articles for each weapon? (E.g. Carja, Shadow weapons). However, I feel that that would cause a lot of repeated information (e.g. Shadow Sling will have ammo information on Carja and Normal sling, the description is effectively identical), so I was thinking of tabber infoboxes. I tried to do a little digging in tabbers for portable infoboxes, but apparently it only supports images. If we are to use tabbers, then it is highly likely it would have to be done from scratch, but this poses as a problem to mobile view as it might not be shown properly. Like to know your opinions. Heshbruwn (talk) 07:03, April 10, 2017 (UTC) :I definitely like the tabber idea, and I have an idea for how you might be able to implement it. It's pretty hacky, but you could work around it by making two "sub-templates"- a mobile version (without the tabber) and a desktop version. Wikia's mobile skin hides certain template types, and ignores all CSS, so you can do some trickery to get two different outcomes on desktop and mobile. Basically, if you mark the "desktop" template as a non-mobile type (thus hiding it on mobile), and wrap the "mobile" template in CSS that stops it from being displayed (thus hiding it on desktop), then the appropriate template should show up for each platform. Bearborg (talk) 15:00, April 10, 2017 (UTC) :::I get what you're trying to say, although I'm not sure if I'm capable of doing this. Between my lack of expertise and my schedule is also being slightly busier than it used to be, I'll still attempt to do this although this project will definitely take some time. Heshbruwn (talk) 12:09, April 12, 2017 (UTC) ::::Do you mind if I take a crack at it? I don't want to step on your toes or anything, but I'd gladly give it a try if you're busy. Bearborg (talk) 13:16, April 12, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Sure thing! Heshbruwn (talk) 17:35, April 12, 2017 (UTC) :::::: So I take this to mean instead of having a separate page for the say the Lodge war Bow, shadow war Bow, Carja war Bow, and war Bow on top of a page for war bows in general they are all included in the general war bows page under different tabs. If that's the case for consistency sake should we do the same thing for Outfits where we don't have separate pages for Light, medium, and heavy but just have different tabs under the outfit type? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:25, April 13, 2017 (UTC) :::::::: I'm not sure if it's as applicable to the Outfits section though. The main reason I wanted weapons to have tabbers was because if there were to be separate articles, the description of the article would be exactly the same. But in this case, each outfit has different descriptions. However, if we were to put your idea into action, I can imagine the article being somewhat like the Metal Flowers page, where there would be one standard Outfit page, and the headers would be Common, Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare outfits, and with each click of a tab, the infobox information and image would change. Heshbruwn (talk) 02:58, April 13, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::I think he just meant that Nora Survivor Light/Medium/Heavy should all be one page. IMO it's definitely a good idea. Bearborg (talk) 05:11, April 13, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::Ahh, I misread his reply (a bad habit of mine). I thought he meant all outfits fitted into a single page. In that case, I support that decision as well! Heshbruwn (talk) 06:18, April 13, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::: The caveat would be the three Dlc outfits and the outcast, Nora Brave, and shield-weaver. Even though the last three use the same base outfit they're different enough to warrant their own pages I guess. Same with the Dlc ones. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 10:26, April 13, 2017 (UTC) Skills and Abilities I saw that Aloy's page has a "Skills and Abilities" section. I was wondering if this should be implemented amongst all Character pages (or at least all major characters) for the sake of consistency and clarity. GuillermoIE (talk) 15:17, July 3, 2017 (UTC) : I support for consistency. Although my concern is that for characters like Rost and Teb, it might be easier to describe their skills as they are displayed and relayed clearly ingame, but for characters like let's say... Lansra, it might be harder to describe their abilities. Heshbruwn (talk) 05:43, July 4, 2017 (UTC) : I understand where you're coming from. Maybe rather than universally implementing it, we implement it across the characters with enough significance in the story, such as Sylens or Sona. Characters like Lansra who we don't know much about, or obscure characters such as Daradi, would not need it.GuillermoIE (talk) 01:12, July 20, 2017 (UTC) ::: I think GuillermoIE has a good plan. Fleshing out that section for more-developed characters sounds like a good idea. M67PattonZippo (talk) 11:33, July 20, 2017 (UTC) ::::: Good idea indeed, I'lll add it to the poll, previous people who voted will have to revote Heshbruwn (talk) 16:23, July 20, 2017 (UTC) Header Layouts Is it okay if I edit this page to clean up the format and add the header lists that wer have been using for Location, Quest, and Character pages? I think we would have a lot more consistency on this wiki if we made this information more user-friendly. Let me know!!! Queenmirelurk (talk) 16:43, August 22, 2017 (UTC) : Yeah sure! Go ahead :) Heshbruwn (talk) 16:52, August 26, 2017 (UTC) Deciding which characters to put the "Skills and Abilities" header As many of you guys can tell, the poll pretty much unanimously decides that "Skills and Abilities" should be a header for the characters pages. Other than Aloy (which has already been implemented), I can only think of a small handful of a few other major characters: Rost, Helis, and Sylens. The problem is, other than Rost, the abilities of the other two characters aren't portrayed quite as obviously. What do you guys think? Heshbruwn (talk) 16:55, August 26, 2017 (UTC)